Darkphoenix3450wrote:Applying Occam's razor to Jesus's birth, we can introduce it to a few known Hypothesis in order to come up with the most likely theory.

1. Jesus was born from an affair with another man (very likely possibility compared to being a virgin birth. )

2. The fact that Jesus was fictional character based off from other religions who have used the idea of a virgin birth 1000's of years before the birth of that religion. ( Horus's virgin birth )

3. Jesus was born from a Dracs who do virgin births. ( not very likely.)...

4. Jesus is born from a God who could not find a better way to create him self a human body.

Now using Occam's Razor what is the most likely outcome to how Jesus came to be?

Do you maybe have any other theories that was not on the list?

Feel free to debate and refute any of the possibilities?

Debate and challenge each other to aid on this thinking exercise? ...Notes...
Occam's razor "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones"

Dracs "come from the movie Enemy Mine: that is a 1985 science fiction film"

Theory " scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

introduce "Bring a subject to the attention of (someone) for the first time."

The incongruous formatting of this post made it difficult to read.

The absurd fakery of the story actually supports the idea that a "Jesus" existed. Jesus of Nazareth was allegedly born in Nazareth, however, it was prophesied that he must be born at David's house in Bethlehem. In order for this to occur, a census (which we know never took place) is proposed by Caesar Augustus, requiring people to return to their hometown to be registered. The nativity, as we know it, was a complete fabrication; not a single gospel agrees on the story of the nativity, either.

But, if they were simply going to make up the whole thing, and there was never a Jesus, why not have Jesus born in Bethlehem? And leave out the nazarem business. The attempts to make the story true suggest, indeed, that there likely was a charismatic individual running around at the time.

Not only that, but the witnesses of the resurrection were women. What religion, who wants a fabrication to be believed, would claim they've got a bunch of hysterical women -- mind you, at the time period it took 4 women to overturn a man's witness in court. The absurd composition, how the entire story is so strenuously put together suggest that, maybe, there was something going on. There was some character. A "Jesus" likely did exist, though the metaphysical claims are obviously untrue.

Dracs "come from the movie Enemy Mine: that is a 1985 science fiction film"

Theory " scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

introduce "Bring a subject to the attention of (someone) for the first time."

I will not debate on the merits of your philosophy

But your theories just don't cut it.

1. Since Almighty God, who created the vast heavens and has provided us a planet with every kind of food imaginable, an atmosphere that has the right number of mixed gases to sustain life, Clean water, Just the right distance from the sun's rays to give us warmth, rain it due seasons, domesticated animal for food, and or compainonship, every kind of resourse man could want., and yet YOU think he doesn't have power to put the lifeforce of his first direct creation, His Son, and master worker, into the womb of a virgin woman, who agreed to it.?

Remember, prophecy said that the Messiah would come through the tribe of Judah, and be a desendant of David, Matt.1:6-17

Now as for the birth, Matthew 1:18-21, 22-25, However Luke provides us with additional information in Luke.1:26-38; 2:1-20; Matthew further shows where Jesus was at birth and what really happened with the " 3 Wise Men " , Matthew. 2: 1-15, 16-23.

The absurd fakery of the story actually supports the idea that a "Jesus" existed. Jesus of Nazareth was allegedly born in Nazareth, however, it was prophesied that he must be born at David's house in Bethlehem. In order for this to occur, a census (which we know never took place) is proposed by Caesar Augustus, requiring people to return to their hometown to be registered. The nativity, as we know it, was a complete fabrication; not a single gospel agrees on the story of the nativity, either.

You are in error, there is scriptural evidence: Now as for the birth, Matthew 1:18-21, 22-25, However Luke provides us with additional information in Luke.1:26-38; 2:1-20

But, if they were simply going to make up the whole thing, and there was never a Jesus, why not have Jesus born in Bethlehem? And leave out the nazarem business. The attempts to make the story true suggest, indeed, that there likely was a charismatic individual running around at the time.

Your last paragraph doesn't hold water either, and just you say it didn't happen, doesn't stand up to the Bible record either.

Not only that, but the witnesses of the resurrection were women. What religion, who wants a fabrication to be believed, would claim they've got a bunch of hysterical women -- mind you, at the time period it took 4 women to overturn a man's witness in court. The absurd composition, how the entire story is so strenuously put together suggest that, maybe, there was something going on. There was some character. A "Jesus" likely did exist, though the metaphysical claims are obviously untrue.

Now as to YOUR assertion that there were only women who saw, when in the space of 40 days AFTER the Ressurection Many saw proof that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20; Luke Chapter 24

AcadGladewrote:You are in error, there is scriptural evidence: Now as for the birth, Matthew 1:18-21, 22-25, However Luke provides us with additional information in Luke.1:26-38; 2:1-20

Quite the obstinate one; you must be truly credulous to believe, much less cite, scriptures to prove their own accuracy.

Carl Sagan believed that humans have been on this planet for 150,000 years. Richard Dawkins believes it's up to 200,000. The lowest estimates are 100,000 years. Let's take 100,000 years.

For you to believe the story presented in the bible, you would have to believe that for ~97,000 years, the heavens watched with indifference. Humans, terrified of storms, earthquakes, etc. The average lifespan is 25 years, more than half of all women die in childbirth. Those fortunate enough to survive either die of miliaria or of their teeth. For 97,000 years, the heavens watch this with indifference as rape and pillaging occurs.

Then, 3,000 years ago, the heavens decide, "no, that's enough, it's time to intervene." Now, they don't have a revelation in China, where people can read and study evidence. They decide to have a revelation in a barbaric, illiterate part of the middle east, by means of human sacrifice.

But even if accept the absurdity of this premise, you still have all your work cut out for you. Jesus being born from a virgin -- this doesn't mean that his paternity is divine, nor does his resurrection mean he was the son of god. In fact, if you wish to cite scripture, Matthew 27:52 claims that, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose..." It would appear that resurrection was somewhat of a banality at the time. How come none of these people were the son of god?

If anyone can bring themselves to believe that story, they convict themselves of being both: very stupid, and very gullible. Indeed, if you're willing to be so hidebound, if you're willing to cite a source to prove the accuracy of itself, your argument carries little weight with any educated, literate audience, the specious stories and ostensible gospels withstanding.

AcadGladewrote:Your last paragraph doesn't hold water either, and just you say it didn't happen, doesn't stand up to the Bible record either.

We know that Caesar Augustus never proposed a census that required people to return to their hometown. We know that Quirinius was not governor of Syria in that year, as the gospel says. This is a very pitiful practice of fraud, that worked on stupefied, terrified peasants in the greater jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence people today.

AcadGladewrote:Now as to YOUR assertion that there were only women who saw, when in the space of 40 days AFTER the Ressurection Many saw proof that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20; Luke Chapter 24

If you saw a man executed one day walking the streets the next, not even you would believe it, and that's if you've seen it with your own eyes. You would run up and check, "Is that really you?" or "You really looked died when they took you down from that cross, I suppose that wasn't the case." But suppose you didn't see it yourself. You heard about. You're hearing about it 300 years after it happened, from sheep herders at the beginning of the bronze age. And really, what's more likely, that the natural order has been suspending -- in your favor -- or you're under a misapprehension.

-
And what about the concession by the whole school of israeli archeology: the entire story of the exodus, the captivity, the wondering, the conquest of canaan is also a complete fabrication.

I am amazed, that a story so strenuous, so obviously fabricated, is accepted at face value. So much so, in fact, that you, an intelligent, literate person, will cite it as a direct source to prove it's own accuracy.

AcadGladewrote:You are in error, there is scriptural evidence: Now as for the birth, Matthew 1:18-21, 22-25, However Luke provides us with additional information in Luke.1:26-38; 2:1-20

Quite the obstinate one; you must be truly credulous to believe, much less cite, scriptures to prove their own accuracy.

Carl Sagan believed that humans have been on this planet for 150,000 years. Richard Dawkins believes it's up to 200,000. The lowest estimates are 100,000 years. Let's take 100,000 years.

For you to believe the story presented in the bible, you would have to believe that for ~97,000 years, the heavens watched with indifference. Humans, terrified of storms, earthquakes, etc. The average lifespan is 25 years, more than half of all women die in childbirth. Those fortunate enough to survive either die of miliaria or of their teeth. For 97,000 years, the heavens watch this with indifference as rape and pillaging occurs.

Then, 3,000 years ago, the heavens decide, "no, that's enough, it's time to intervene." Now, they don't have a revelation in China, where people can read and study evidence. They decide to have a revelation in a barbaric, illiterate part of the middle east, by means of human sacrifice.

But even if accept the absurdity of this premise, you still have all your work cut out for you. Jesus being born from a virgin -- this doesn't mean that his paternity is divine, nor does his resurrection mean he was the son of god. In fact, if you wish to cite scripture, Matthew 27:52 claims that, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose..." It would appear that resurrection was somewhat of a banality at the time. How come none of these people were the son of god?

If anyone can bring themselves to believe that story, they convict themselves of being both: very stupid, and very gullible. Indeed, if you're willing to be so hidebound, if you're willing to cite a source to prove the accuracy of itself, your argument carries little weight with any educated, literate audience, the specious stories and ostensible gospels withstanding.

AcadGladewrote:Your last paragraph doesn't hold water either, and just you say it didn't happen, doesn't stand up to the Bible record either.

We know that Caesar Augustus never proposed a census that required people to return to their hometown. We know that Quirinius was not governor of Syria in that year, as the gospel says. This is a very pitiful practice of fraud, that worked on stupefied, terrified peasants in the greater jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence people today.

AcadGladewrote:Now as to YOUR assertion that there were only women who saw, when in the space of 40 days AFTER the Ressurection Many saw proof that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20; Luke Chapter 24

If you saw a man executed one day walking the streets the next, not even you would believe it, and that's if you've seen it with your own eyes. You would run up and check, "Is that really you?" or "You really looked died when they took you down from that cross, I suppose that wasn't the case." But suppose you didn't see it yourself. You heard about. You're hearing about it 300 years after it happened, from sheep herders at the beginning of the bronze age. And really, what's more likely, that the natural order has been suspending -- in your favor -- or you're under a misapprehension.

The problem you have is that you cannot see your eyes before your face, or the forest from the trees, Jesus was under great strain, being impaled, do you have any idea what that would be like, Picture yourself being layed down, forceably by roman soldiers or members of the auxiliary and have nails driven through your hands, and these nail were specifically made for this use, your nailed to a post foot and hands so that, when they raise the post up and sink it into the post holes, your like maybe 10 to 15 feet off the ground and hanging by those nails to your hands and feet, your clothing is removed from you except maybe your inner garment that is around your waist, the other clothes are apportioned among the soldiers, as to your assertion that Jesus faked his death is false to, because it you see, they didn't stay hanging up there for only an hour, or two, It was to be the whole day, and during that time, the soldiers would come back to make sure they died, by two methods , one was to break the bones of those impaled, (Jesus expired before that , so they didn't do that,) and as one soldier did, he pierced Jesus side with his spear and water and blood poured out.
-Your babbling is getting incoherent , Jesus death was witnessed by many people, and guards that were there two, and the two other condemed men who were impaled,( Oh and if you ever REALLY did any research, Jesus was not executed on a cross, but on a torture stake, an upright pole

And what about the concession by the whole school of israeli archeology: the entire story of the exodus, the captivity, the wondering, the conquest of canaan is also a complete fabrication. what about the whole school of Israrli archeology? You haven't shown any evidence, See, there you go again making assertions you have no evidence to provide.

I am amazed, that a story so strenuous, so obviously fabricated, is accepted at face value. So much so, in fact, that you, an intelligent, literate person, will cite it as a direct source to prove it's own accuracy.

I can see who is the Obsinate one is, Your first paragraph made no sense at all, the second one doublely so I don't Care what Carl Sagan said or Hawking said, frankly I don't give credence to theorist anyway, The Bible, is a book of truth, No it's not a science textbook,

All I see is that you fullfilled a scripture or two yourself, Romans 1:24-32Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness,+ that their bodies+ might be dishonored among them,+ 25 even those who exchanged the truth+ of God for the lie+ and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.* 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites,+ for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;+ 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female+ and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,+ working what is obscene*+ and receiving in themselves the full recompense,+ which was due for their error.+

28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge,+ God gave them up to a disapproved mental state,+ to do the things not fitting,+ 29 filled as they were with all unrighteousness,+ wickedness,+ covetousness,+ badness,+ being full of envy,+ murder,+ strife,+ deceit,+ malicious disposition,+ being whisperers,+ 30 backbiters,+ haters of God, insolent,+ haughty,+ self-assuming,+ inventors of injurious things,+ disobedient to parents,+ 31 without understanding,+ false to agreements,*+ having no natural affection,+ merciless.+ 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God,+ that those practicing such things are deserving of death,+ they not only keep on doing them but also consent+ with those practicing them.

And what about the concession by the whole school of israeli archeology: the entire story of the exodus, the captivity, the wondering, the conquest of canaan is also a complete fabrication. what about the whole school of Israrli archeology?

You haven't shown any evidence, See, there you go again making assertions you have no evidence to provide.

I should first apologize. I should have cited the source regarding the Israeli archeology society. I assumed, improperly, that an armchair theologian like yourself would be familiar, it was big news when it came out.

Historians and Archeologists now consider that the Exodus never happened. The Exodus was a fictional narrative put together sometime between the 8th and 5th centuries BC [1]. The story contains a string of unrelated tales, dating as far back as 13th BCE. Said tales were later polished and strung together as a theological/political manifesto, the goal to to unite the Israelites in a territory dispute against Egypt [2]. Additionally, the archaeological evidence of Canaan, rather than Egyptian, origins and of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is overwhelming and leaves quote, "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness." [3]

William Dever, an archaeologist associated with the conservative Syro-Palestinian archaeology society, claims the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog sums up the current consensus of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century BC -- of a history that never happened.” [4]

AcadGladewrote:You are in error, there is scriptural evidence: Now as for the birth, Matthew 1:18-21, 22-25, However Luke provides us with additional information in Luke.1:26-38; 2:1-20

Quite the obstinate one; you must be truly credulous to believe, much less cite, scriptures to prove their own accuracy.

Carl Sagan believed that humans have been on this planet for 150,000 years. Richard Dawkins believes it's up to 200,000. The lowest estimates are 100,000 years. Let's take 100,000 years.

For you to believe the story presented in the bible, you would have to believe that for ~97,000 years, the heavens watched with indifference. Humans, terrified of storms, earthquakes, etc. The average lifespan is 25 years, more than half of all women die in childbirth. Those fortunate enough to survive either die of miliaria or of their teeth. For 97,000 years, the heavens watch this with indifference as rape and pillaging occurs.

Then, 3,000 years ago, the heavens decide, "no, that's enough, it's time to intervene." Now, they don't have a revelation in China, where people can read and study evidence. They decide to have a revelation in a barbaric, illiterate part of the middle east, by means of human sacrifice.

But even if accept the absurdity of this premise, you still have all your work cut out for you. Jesus being born from a virgin -- this doesn't mean that his paternity is divine, nor does his resurrection mean he was the son of god. In fact, if you wish to cite scripture, Matthew 27:52 claims that, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose..." It would appear that resurrection was somewhat of a banality at the time. How come none of these people were the son of god?

If anyone can bring themselves to believe that story, they convict themselves of being both: very stupid, and very gullible. Indeed, if you're willing to be so hidebound, if you're willing to cite a source to prove the accuracy of itself, your argument carries little weight with any educated, literate audience, the specious stories and ostensible gospels withstanding.

AcadGladewrote:Your last paragraph doesn't hold water either, and just you say it didn't happen, doesn't stand up to the Bible record either.

We know that Caesar Augustus never proposed a census that required people to return to their hometown. We know that Quirinius was not governor of Syria in that year, as the gospel says. This is a very pitiful practice of fraud, that worked on stupefied, terrified peasants in the greater jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence people today.

AcadGladewrote:Now as to YOUR assertion that there were only women who saw, when in the space of 40 days AFTER the Ressurection Many saw proof that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20; Luke Chapter 24

If you saw a man executed one day walking the streets the next, not even you would believe it, and that's if you've seen it with your own eyes. You would run up and check, "Is that really you?" or "You really looked died when they took you down from that cross, I suppose that wasn't the case." But suppose you didn't see it yourself. You heard about. You're hearing about it 300 years after it happened, from sheep herders at the beginning of the bronze age. And really, what's more likely, that the natural order has been suspending -- in your favor -- or you're under a misapprehension.

The problem you have is that you cannot see your eyes before your face, or the forest from the trees, Jesus was under great strain, being impaled, do you have any idea what that would be like, Picture yourself being layed down, forceably by roman soldiers or members of the auxiliary and have nails driven through your hands, and these nail were specifically made for this use, your nailed to a post foot and hands so that, when they raise the post up and sink it into the post holes, your like maybe 10 to 15 feet off the ground and hanging by those nails to your hands and feet, your clothing is removed from you except maybe your inner garment that is around your waist, the other clothes are apportioned among the soldiers, as to your assertion that Jesus faked his death is false to, because it you see, they didn't stay hanging up there for only an hour, or two, It was to be the whole day, and during that time, the soldiers would come back to make sure they died, by two methods , one was to break the bones of those impaled, (Jesus expired before that , so they didn't do that,) and as one soldier did, he pierced Jesus side with his spear and water and blood poured out.
-Your babbling is getting incoherent , Jesus death was witnessed by many people, and guards that were there two, and the two other condemed men who were impaled,( Oh and if you ever REALLY did any research, Jesus was not executed on a cross, but on a torture stake, an upright pole

And what about the concession by the whole school of israeli archeology: the entire story of the exodus, the captivity, the wondering, the conquest of canaan is also a complete fabrication. what about the whole school of Israrli archeology? You haven't shown any evidence, See, there you go again making assertions you have no evidence to provide.

I am amazed, that a story so strenuous, so obviously fabricated, is accepted at face value. So much so, in fact, that you, an intelligent, literate person, will cite it as a direct source to prove it's own accuracy.

I can see who is the Obsinate one is, Your first paragraph made no sense at all, the second one doublely so I don't Care what Carl Sagan said or Hawking said, frankly I don't give credence to theorist anyway, The Bible, is a book of truth, No it's not a science textbook,

Even if you give little credence to what some of the greater scientist of our day say, I would still implore you read the section regarding the absurdity of the story and the nativity.

Nevertheless, the archeological evidence withstanding -- as you put it, the bible is not a science book, I think you have that just about right -- consider the belief itself. Are you not glad that the evidence is so poor, so strenuous, so shamelessly fabricated?

The belief itself is totalitarian, to wish it to be true is to wish to be a slave. Do you really want there to be an unalterable, unchallengeable, unmovable authority who can convict you of thought crime? Who subjects you to total surveillance around the clock, every minute of your life, even after you die. Do you really wish this to be true? Do you really desire such a ghastly existence? As literary critic Christ Hitchens put it, "... It's a celestial North Korea. When I die, I'd rather not go to a place where all I can do is praise dear leader from dawn until dusk [5]."

The wish for this to be true is the wish to be a slave; forced, to love someone you fear, the essence of sadomasochism and the master-slave relation. If you wish to make that concession, AcadGlade, if you wish to a slave, by all means. But keep us out of it. I don't know about you, but there's much more beauty and joy in the world if you take the liberty of thinking for yourself, not a non-existent celestial dictator.

AcadGladewrote:All I see is that you fullfilled a scripture or two yourself, Romans 1:24-32Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness,+ that their bodies+ might be dishonored among them,+ 25 even those who exchanged the truth+ of God for the lie+ and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.* 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites,+ for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;+ 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female+ and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,+ working what is obscene*+ and receiving in themselves the full recompense,+ which was due for their error.+

28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge,+ God gave them up to a disapproved mental state,+ to do the things not fitting,+ 29 filled as they were with all unrighteousness,+ wickedness,+ covetousness,+ badness,+ being full of envy,+ murder,+ strife,+ deceit,+ malicious disposition,+ being whisperers,+ 30 backbiters,+ haters of God, insolent,+ haughty,+ self-assuming,+ inventors of injurious things,+ disobedient to parents,+ 31 without understanding,+ false to agreements,*+ having no natural affection,+ merciless.+ 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God,+ that those practicing such things are deserving of death,+ they not only keep on doing them but also consent+ with those practicing them.

Shemhamphoraschwrote:I am amazed, that a story so strenuous, so obviously fabricated, is accepted at face value. So much so, in fact, that you, an intelligent, literate person, will cite it as a direct source to prove it's own accuracy.

Unless you want to learn what futile, pretentious, and sardonic mean firsthand.

Theory " scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Soo.... for the record... you guys all realize this says some aspect of the "natural world," right? This is set up with an ASSUMED BIAS that the birth of Jesus fits into the realm of "natural" or can be considered a "natural" event.

IF Jesus birth was "supernatural" ie. from God - theories do not apply... Occam's razor does not really apply...

Here is the thing: Each of us coming to this thread has his own set of criteria for determining what is evidence and what is not... and all of that evidence is filtered through his own world view.

There is a lot of rejection and dismissal of evidence going on here, in some instances evidence that really ought to be considered. To be honest, I'm slightly staggered that the "historicity" or "existence" of Jesus is up for debate alongside the virgin birth. That aside, however, it needs to be considered that MOST people (even those scholars being quoted) do not acquire the evidence or form the conclusions they have without a bias already intact. MOST people (even well-reputed scholars) LOOK for evidence to SUPPORT a belief they have already formed, rather than coming to a conclusion AFTER considering evidence - at least... as applies to THIS question. It does not really help one find Truth or Reality - if one believes in Truth or Reality.

I understand discussing the idea of believing whether "the virgin birth" did actually occur or not. To an extent. But the fact remains, that if it did occur (ie. the birth of Jesus WAS virginal)... at the end of the day, no amount of evidence that it occurred or reasoning that it occurred can convince a person who refuses to believe in the "supernatural" that it did occur. At the same time, a person who does believe in the "supernatural" has no reason whatsoever to doubt the authenticity of its occurring and, in fact, no amount of evidence that such an occurrence is preposterous or unbelievable has any real effect. The person who believes in the "supernatural" does not deny that such an event is preposterous or unbelievable within the "natural" world, but that does NOT do anything to diminish the plausibility of the account, because it rightfully falls into another realm.

So the question here is not - who can quote the most evidence, sound the most scholarly, make his opponent seem the most daft, etc. to prove whether the "virgin birth" can or can not be taken literally.

The question is much more simple.

Do you or I have a world view that is capable of recognizing the "supernatural?"

--takes a lot of the emotional charge out of it...

Now. IF we get a bunch of people who ALL believe in the "supernatural" to start discussing the legitimacy of THIS particular virgin birth over the ligitimacy of some OTHER virgin birth or likewise "supernatural" birthing of a deity or deity-like figure... that could be more interesting (the ASSUMPTION being that they are mutually exclusive - which may or may not be true [if one believes in Truth & Reality]). Otherwise, it's just stalemates all over the place. World views collide - big bada boom.

Also, real quick-like: to the dude who accused the other dude of plagiarizing... uhhh... he was just quoting the bible, man. He put the reference RIGHT before the quote... sooo... that wasn't plagiarism, even if it wasn't a correctly formatted quote.

Theory " scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Soo.... for the record... you guys all realize this says some aspect of the "natural world," right? This is set up with an ASSUMED BIAS that the birth of Jesus fits into the realm of "natural" or can be considered a "natural" event.

IF Jesus birth was "supernatural" ie. from God - theories do not apply... Occam's razor does not really apply...

Here is the thing: Each of us coming to this thread has his own set of criteria for determining what is evidence and what is not... and all of that evidence is filtered through his own world view.

There is a lot of rejection and dismissal of evidence going on here, in some instances evidence that really ought to be considered. To be honest, I'm slightly staggered that the "historicity" or "existence" of Jesus is up for debate alongside the virgin birth. That aside, however, it needs to be considered that MOST people (even those scholars being quoted) do not acquire the evidence or form the conclusions they have without a bias already intact. MOST people (even well-reputed scholars) LOOK for evidence to SUPPORT a belief they have already formed, rather than coming to a conclusion AFTER considering evidence - at least... as applies to THIS question. It does not really help one find Truth or Reality - if one believes in Truth or Reality.

I understand discussing the idea of believing whether "the virgin birth" did actually occur or not. To an extent. But the fact remains, that if it did occur (ie. the birth of Jesus WAS virginal)... at the end of the day, no amount of evidence that it occurred or reasoning that it occurred can convince a person who refuses to believe in the "supernatural" that it did occur. At the same time, a person who does believe in the "supernatural" has no reason whatsoever to doubt the authenticity of its occurring and, in fact, no amount of evidence that such an occurrence is preposterous or unbelievable has any real effect. The person who believes in the "supernatural" does not deny that such an event is preposterous or unbelievable within the "natural" world, but that does NOT do anything to diminish the plausibility of the account, because it rightfully falls into another realm.

I think you're very much missing the point, love - if it's OK to call you that. Your philosophy 101 arguments fail to elucidate or even address the matter at hand while your attempt to seem circumspect by withholding a strong opinion on the topic of discussion is annoying, incongruous verbiage notwithstanding.

dirkgent1ywroteSo the question here is not - who can quote the most evidence, sound the most scholarly, make his opponent seem the most daft, etc. to prove whether the "virgin birth" can or can not be taken literally.

The question is much more simple.

Do you or I have a world view that is capable of recognizing the "supernatural?"

--takes a lot of the emotional charge out of it...

To claim an argument on the existence of a person cannot be discussed on the basis of evidence is contemptible and you should feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself. If you actually read earlier arguments, though I doubt you capable of reading any long work, you would see you're sidestepping the entire discussion at hand.

If one accepts a suspension of the natural order, the virgin birth, based of no evidence they convict themselves of being both: very stupid, and very credulous. And yes, the argument of the suspension of the natural order "miracle" vs. a grave misapprehension does have a winning side, the side that has the virtue of being measurable and observable.

You're also grossly misinterpreting previous statements (I repeat, I would implore you to actually read the discussion and hand), no one is saying the virgin birth was impossible, and reducing previous arguments to "Do you or I have a world view that is capable of recognizing the 'supernatural?'" is retarded, truly. Don't you believe, in all truth and sincerity, that if one day, perhaps tomorrow, proof was found that Jesus was born of a virgin, that all religious zealots would jump on that fact? "We have proof! We were right! We knew it all along!" they'd scream at the top of their lungs and in television interviews across the world. Then how come that isn't a reciprocal relation? How come proof seems to be a one way street? When there is a complete lack of evidence, you spew the retarded line "it doesn't matter, because 'supernatural' durr I took philosophy 101 I am brilliant i like dough." You can't expect to have it both ways; please, you won't get away with it, love.

The way I see it, the concept of Jesus was created by humans. Nothing more than an idea to guide those without hope and provide an example as to how we should live our lives. An excellent idea to enforce a specific set of behaviors.

Girl I posted this so long ago I don't even know what I was talking about lmao. I don't feel like reading the past posts to explain. So to break it down... I guess I mean't explaining it is pointless because everyone has their own opinions. No its not a bad thing to doubt what you don't really know

Girl I posted this so long ago I don't even know what I was talking about lmao. I don't feel like reading the past posts to explain. So to break it down... I guess I mean't explaining it is pointless because everyone has their own opinions. No its not a bad thing to doubt what you don't really know

Wouldn't you then say it'd be best to find out about it?
After all every (valid) opinion is based on logic, reasoning and proof. Would it not then be best to dig a little and find out if what you believe is actually believable?